Three perspectives of the ‘other’: the barbarian in Eutropius, Orosius and Hydatius

(1)

UNIVERSIDADE DE LISBOA FACULDADE DE LETRAS

THREE PERSPECTIVES OF THE

‘OTHER’: THE BARBARIAN IN

EUTROPIUS, OROSIUS AND HYDATIUS

ANTÓNIO JOÃO LEITÃO DOS SANTOS

Thesis supervised by Dr Rodrigo Miguel Correia Furtado, specifically written to obtain the degree of Master in HISTORY, ANCIENT HISTORY SPECIALITY

2022

(2)

(3)

i

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: total uses and concentration poles of the word barbarus and its chronological

equivalence. ... 43

Table 2: number of appearances of each term and number of uses by author. ... 46

Table 3: number of appearances of each ethnonym and number of uses with the total appearances of each people by author. ... 52

Table 4: comparison of occurrences of barbarus with the number of appearances of each religious term by author and the total number of uses in all authors. ... 54

Table 5: vocabulary associated with barbarus and number of uses, by author ... 61

Table 6: vocabulary associated with Germani and number of uses by author. ... 62

Table 7: vocabulary associated with Scythae and number of uses, by author. ... 63

Table 8: vocabulary associated with the Scythian tribes, barbarus and scythae in comparison. ... 68

Table 9: vocabulary associated with the Germanic tribes, with barbarus and Germani in comparison. ... 72

Table 10: list of all 'barbarian' characters that appear in Orosius' and Hydatius' works, along with the number of times they appear. ... 85

LIST OF FIGURES

Infographic 1: percentage of use of each ethnonym by author ... 52

Infographic 2: list of the twenty-one most common words related to the Barbarian and respective percentage of use ... 91

(6)

iv

(7)

v

RESUMO

A identidade, individual e coletiva, é um conceito que tem ganho o interesse de diversos campos das ciências humanísticas desde o último quartel do século XX. Diversos problemas sociais presentes na atualidade, como a discriminação de minorias étnico-culturais, remontam a um passado histórico que pode ser traçado desde a Antiguidade. Como tal, a investigação histórica de âmbito etnográfico no mundo greco-romano é essencial para se perceber como se desenvolveu o pensamento ocidental em relação ao “Outro”, não só porque o império romano foi o principal modelo civilizacional dos europeus, mas também pela existência do conceito latino de bárbaro. Este complexo vocábulo agrupava e representava, de forma generalizada, aqueles que não eram romanos e, por consequência, os não civilizados. Contudo, durante o período conhecido por Antiguidade Tardia, surgiram novas conceções que alteraram o núcleo tradicional da identidade romana e a maneira como estes viam e representavam o “Outro”.

Nesta dissertação procuro analisar a figura do bárbaro e compreender como este era interpretado por aqueles que se identificavam como “verdadeiros romanos” através de três textos dos séculos IV e V d.C.: o Breuiarium ab Urbe Condita de Eutrópio, as Historiae aduersus paganos de Orósio e as Chronica de Hidácio de Chaves. Esta transição de século é caracterizada por um período de turbulência coincidente com uma série de mudanças conceituais que se deveram, entre outras coisas, à introdução do Cristianismo como religião do Estado romano e ao estabelecimento de populações citas e germânicas dentro da fronteira imperial. Uma época em que as conceções “étnicas” se encontravam num fluxo constante à medida que a religiosidade se introduzia como um dos principais fatores indicadores de identidade. No entanto, o meu foco não é redescobrir a imagem do bárbaro ou redefini-lo como conceito geral, mas sim compreendê-lo nesses três autores específicos e perceber como era interpretado e quais as suas marcas definidoras. Isto porque, apesar do aumento dos estudos nesta área nos últimos anos, existem ainda lacunas sobre o que (ou quem) era, de forma precisa, o bárbaro nesse período. Esta dissertação, apesar de ser uma tese introdutória ao tema do bárbaro, ajuda a clarificar a sua imagem na Antiguidade Tardia e Alta Idade Média, além de servir de alicerce para um estudo mais abrangente no futuro.

(8)

vi

Com esse objetivo, além de barbarus, alarguei o estudo a outras palavras que achei interessante correlacionar e que não deixavam de estar associadas à representação do “Outro”.

Primeiramente selecionei designações geográficas (germani e scythae) que se associam às regiões de onde as tribos bárbaras eram oriundas; depois prioritizei designações étnico-culturais para afunilar o estudo e comparar a evolução do uso dos etnónimos com a palavra genérica ‘bárbaro’ e ver quais eram as tribos que mais influenciaram a imagem do Bárbaro e porquê (optei pelas tribos dos Alanos, dos Francos, dos Hunos, dos Godos, dos Suevos e dos Vândalos por serem das maiores e mais reconhecidas populações bárbaras); e por fim decidi escolher designações do âmbito religioso como haereticus e paganus.

Com esses requisitos em mente, agrupei todas as descrições do “Outro” presentes nos textos escolhidos, tanto na sua forma coletiva como individual, e dissequei-as caso a caso de modo a construir uma base de dados significativa sobre os bárbaros e as suas características ao nível semântico, cultural e literário, e desdobrei esses dados de modo a verificar qual é o topos literário que se encontra nesses autores e como é que esse evoluiu ao longo dos textos. Contudo, a exposição da tese não segue um percurso necessariamente linear, apesar da objetividade das minhas ideias. Ainda assim, adotei uma estrutura orgânica e intuitiva que abraça o próprio desenvolvimento dos vários pontos do estudo e que facilita a sua abordagem e compreensão.

Assim sendo, dividi a dissertação em quatro capítulos principais, tendo em conta as múltiplas facetas do Bárbaro e dos bárbaros nas obras de Eutrópio, Orósio e Hidácio de Chaves.

O primeiro capítulo de desenvolvimento da dissertação, dedicado à identificação textual do Bárbaro, é principalmente uma análise estatística. Neste capítulo concentrei-me em escrutinar um conjunto particular de palavras que achei relevantes de maneira a conseguir uma demonstração dos povos explicitamente categorizados como bárbaros pelos autores e a perceber se existia algum tipo de evolução interna ou intertextual no uso da palavra barbarus ou dos etnónimos. Com essa análise inicial, montei uma base de dados central que explicita os resultados obtidos de forma precisa, mas que também é fulcral para suportar e compreender o contexto dos capítulos seguintes. Devido a esta metodologia, é um capítulo com pouca interpretação, apesar de ser complementado com pormenores sobre as possíveis formas de subdivisão do “Outro” (geograficamente, religiosamente ou etnicamente através de etnónimos).

O segundo capítulo, dedicado à caracterização do Bárbaro, é o primeiro da parte interpretativa da dissertação. Todavia, para este capítulo, achei pertinente expandir o método do capítulo anterior a personagens individuais e outros elementos associados ao “Outro”

(9)

vii

(incluindo cada um dos etnónimos) porque também constituem matéria de caracterização direta do Bárbaro e são dados que ajudam a compreender como é que os historiadores tardios definiam os bárbaros e a desenvolver uma melhor avaliação do quadro geral que esses povos tinham nesse mesmo período. Devido a isso, ainda há uma presença substancial de análise estatística no segundo capítulo. Como as descrições diretas dos bárbaros nos textos escolhidos são escassas ou pouco reveladoras, recorri à semântica para reconstruir a ideia que os autores tinham desses homens. Foquei-me principalmente em verbos e adjetivos utilizados em associação com o Bárbaro, pois são classes de palavras expressivamente pesadas e que são utilizadas para expressar opiniões ou transmitir uma determinada imagem sobre alguém ou algo.

Todas as personagens históricas de origem bárbara que são mencionadas ao longo das obras em estudo encontram-se listadas neste capítulos. Além disso, ainda demonstro então quais são as personagens individuais de origem bárbara mais recorrentes nos textos e como é que estas se encaixavam como bárbaros, tendo em conta o seu papel no plano do próprio autor. Isto permitiu identificar diversas personalidades e identificá-las como sendo representantes do Bárbaro ou uma exceção ao estereótipo. O mesmo tipo de análise foi aplicado a cada um dos etnónimos para ganhar uma noção mais percetível de quais são, em Eutrópio, Orósio e Hidácio, as características típicas de cada tribo bárbara, se havia exclusividade ou se era uma descrição generalizada.

No terceiro capítulo pretendi dar um último olhar à imagem do Bárbaro através das diferenças e semelhanças entre os autores: estilos de escrita, as fontes utilizadas e as suas histórias privadas. Esta comparação permitiu perceber se as experiências pessoais dos autores com os bárbaros teve influência quando escreveram sobre essas populações estrangeiras e as descreveram ou se se limitaram a obedecer aos tópicos literários tradicionais, tendo sempre em conta como é que cada autor utilizou o Bárbaro para expressar as suas ideias sobre o futuro do seu Mundo. Os últimos dois pontos deste capítulo servem de conclusão. Nesses pontos eu reuni todo o conhecimento previamente recolhido e dissertei sobre as perceções de cada autor sobre o Bárbaro e os bárbaros e se estas derivaram de experiências pessoais ou de tradição (fosse ela cultural, literária ou ideológica), concluindo com uma exposição sobre as características mais prevalentes entre as tribos bárbaras e o papel de cada tribo na evolução da definição do Bárbaro.

Finalmente, uma discussão sobre a existência de um topos bárbaro e como é que este é utilizado e quais são as suas características.

(10)

viii

No último capítulo desta dissertação comentei sobre o papel do Cristianismo na transformação do conceito “tradicional” do Bárbaro e como é que as definições de pagão e herege serviram para manter esse conceito na mentalidade das populações germânicas durante o definhamento do Império Romano. Termino a dissertação com um breviário sobre como é que essas definições de âmbito religioso foram utilizadas como um dos elementos unitários da filosofia ocidental que marcaria o início dos reinos europeus e da Idade Média.

(11)

ix

ABSTRACT

This dissertation investigates the representation of the barbarians in late antique (primarily Christian) environments throughout three texts from the fourth and fifth centuries CE: the Breuiarium ab Urbe Condita of Eutropius, the Historiae aduersus paganos of Orosius, and the Chronica of Hydatius of Chaves. The objective is to understand the Barbarian in these three authors and develop a clearer idea of this general concept in Late Antiquity, how it was perceived and its defining characteristics. A central issue around this topic is that, despite the increase in studies on the subject in recent years, there is still a lack of a precise understanding of the Barbarian in this period. That is because, in Late Antiquity, ethnographic and religious conceptions were in constant flux. To help solve this problem, all descriptions of the ‘Other’

— as a group and as individuals — present in the chosen texts were adequately dissected. This breakdown allowed to collect a critical amount of data on the barbarians and other words that also expressed the ‘otherness’ of people in relation to Roman identity. This, in turn, permitted an evaluation of how the Barbarian was characterised at a semantic, cultural and literary levels.

This methodology is helpful because it clarifies the parameters that constitute barbarism for these peoples while also giving an insight into the evolution of this classical literary topos.

(12)

x

(13)

xi

PALAVRAS-CHAVE

Eutrópio, Orósio, Hidácio de Chaves, Bárbaro, Outro

KEYWORDS

Eutropius, Orosius, Hydatius of Chaves, Barbarian, Other

(14)

xii

(15)

xiii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This dissertation would certainly not have been possible without the support of some fundamental people, who were always present, even during the most challenging moments of the pandemic.

First of all, I would like to thank my parents, António and Dulce Santos, and my sister, Marisa Santos, for their years of patience and understanding, without which I would certainly not have completed this phase of my life. I would also like to thank my friends and colleagues, Vanessa Fernandes and Denise Calado, for the constant support over the years with different dynamics of motivation and mutual help that helped me build this project as presented here. Also, to Sara Mendonça, whose help was fundamental for completing this dissertation, I am thankful for her insistence on encouragement, her availability to help, the messages of support, and all the affection she showed in this last and challenging year. You were my greatest admirers and motivators.

Last but not least, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Dr Rodrigo Furtado, for introducing me to the wonders and complexities of Classical Studies and Late Antiquity. He was always open and available throughout this journey that began in 2016 at the Faculty of Letters of the University of Lisbon, and his supervision during my Master’s degree was full of teachings, patience, trust and motivation.

In conclusion, a big thank you to everyone.

(16)

xiv

(17)

xv

ABBREVIATIONS

Ad Nat. Ad Nationes (to the Nations)

Aug. Augustine of Hippo

BG. de Bellum Gallicum (on the Gallic War)

Caes. Julius Caesar Epist. Epistulae (Letters) Eutr. Eutropius

Gal. Book of Galatians (New Testament) Ger. Germania

Hist. Historiae aduersus paganos (Histories against the Pagans)

Hyd. Hydatius of Chaves

Il. Iliad

Judg. Book of Judges (Old Testament)

Macc. Books of the Maccabees (Old Testament) Oros. Orosius

PLRE Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire (vol.1, ed. A. H. M. Jones, J. R.

Martindale and J. Morris; vol. 2, ed. J. R. Martindale)

prol. prologue

Rufin. Rufinus of Aquileia

Sam. Books of Samuel (Old Testament) Sid. Apoll. Sidonius Apollinaris

Tac. Cornelius Tacitus

(18)

xvi

(19)

1

INTRODUCTION

WHO WAS THE BARBARIAN FOR THE LATE LATIN CHRISTIANS?

The idea of ‘Other’ has been present, in one way or another, in all human cultures since the beginning of civilisation. This necessity for ‘Us’ to be distinguished from ‘Them’ seems to have been often present in everyday life — at least since we have written records — camouflaged in-between the most superficial layers of society, like being a fan of a particular sports club and accepting another team as a ‘rival’ for whichever reasons. This type of interaction generates strong feelings directly linked to each individual’s self-identity, heavily influencing how people interact within a given community. Affiliation with a specific group of people integrates the singular individual into a plural system where common ideas and history are available, helping a person define their own identity by sharing these concepts with the other members of that specific group. Human self-identity is a combination of diverse micro-identities such as family, sexual orientation, profession, ethnicity, nationality or faith.

It is well known that these patterns of collective identity are not unique to modern societies;

in fact, many of today’s social problems can be traced back to Antiquity. Therefore, studying the interaction between different groups can greatly assist in understanding the roots of social exclusion. For example, in Greek and Roman cultures, which were socially and economically centralised,¹ these affiliations were as vital as they are today, and much of what was part of a person’s identity was based on their connection to specific groups (Filonik and Kucharski 2021, 1–5). Eventually, in ancient Greek culture, these ideas led to the consolidation of the ‘Other’ as a concept in their language, which later developed into the notion of barbarism.

The word ‘barbarian’, originally used to represent the strange and incomprehensible, served as a unitary factor of culture, marking the border between all Greeks and non-Greeks. This idea was assimilated into the Latin language and mentality, contributing to new connotations which would eventually turn the term into one of the top ways of differentiating between the civilised world (Graeco-Latin) and the uncivilised. Despite being a complex and flexible concept, there is no doubt that the Celts — especially the Gauls — occupied a decisive place in popularising the Barbarian image, to be later gradually replaced by the German as the archetype of lack of

1 Both were collectivist communities — Greek culture was centred around the polis and Latin culture around the capital city of Rome.

(20)

2

civilisation and order — two essential elements in the Roman perception of the world (Méry 2016).

The Christians of the first centuries CE also saw themselves as some kind of ‘barbarian’

(peregrini, or foreigners), as a separate people distinct from the Hellenic (Romans) and the Jews by both rites and customs; thus, they self-identified as a ‘third race’ (Gruen 2017, 241–

2). However, throughout the fourth and fifth centuries, many of them would have already abandoned these self-identification values as the terms began to convey pejorative feelings, harmful to the construction of Christian identity. This circumstantial change in Christian ethnic views — previously non-existent — happened during the Christianization of the Empire in the fourth century CE, when the Romans started to perceive themselves as Christian (Stroumsa 1996, 347).

When this new religious factor was accepted into the moral, cultural and ethnic awareness as part of the conventional Roman identity, the new Romano-Christians consequently started to perceive themselves as the true Romans.² Consequently, the ‘pagans’ — and heretics — were considered uncivilised and effectively alien to the Empire (Kahlos 2011b, 259–70). These transformations, combined with the threat in the face of the foreign peoples at the time, led Christians to abandon their ‘barbarian’ origins and embrace the traditional Roman picture of the Barbarian (Stroumsa 1996, 347).

Around the same time, the ‘real’ non-Romans, or simply barbarians as they are still widely known, pressured the Roman borders and threatened the territorial and political integrity of the Western and Eastern Empire. The fourth and fifth centuries CE represented the peak of the Völkerwanderung³, during which many northern Germanic and Scythian peoples started to settle within the borders of the Roman Empire. These ‘barbarians’ gained a characteristic reputation of uncivilised warriors who were exceedingly violent, cruel and savage — traits that are still familiar to the present-day concept of the ‘Barbarian’ and its semantics.

In this recognisable picture, disseminated today by historical-based series and movies, fantasy genre books, tabletop RPGs and video games, the Barbarian is painted as a violent and fierce warrior, stereotypically clad in furs, who acts by instinct rather than reason.

2 Of course, those who still worshipped the traditional Roman pantheon, labelled ‘Pagans’ by the Christians, also thought of themselves as the true Romans.

3 German word that means ‘migration of nations’; it is explicitly used as a historical term to refer to the period between the second and sixth centuries CE, a span also known as ‘the great migration’.

(21)

3

This derogatory image must have had other reasons to be preserved in such an unaffected way.⁴ Taking into consideration what happened to the Jews in the twentieth century or to the Middle-eastern refugees that have fled to Europe in recent conflicts, it is evident that the strange and the foreign were continuously discredited and stereotyped figures for having different habits, languages or religions. On the contrary, those who are perceived as sharing the same habits, history, or religion are much more ‘welcome’ (see, for instance, the Ukrainians in general and specifically in countries like Poland today). The Romans would be no exception to this tendency. This is particularly true due to the fact that many of the peoples north of the Rhine and Danube — whose only descriptions have reached us from the Roman and Christian points of view — were illiterate throughout the Antiquity.

However, why did the concept of ‘the Barbarian’ not change when the so-called barbarians became the dominant powers and formed their nations in post-Roman empire territories? The answer probably lies in Christianity, one of the most significant common points between the post-Roman barbarian nations and the Roman empire. Therefore, asking the Christian authors about the concept of the Barbarian, their thoughts and definitions of it might be the solution to fully understanding this concept.

This dissertation aims to contribute to answering the question of just who was the Barbarian to late Latin Christians. It also strives to understand how this barbarian ‘Other’ was described throughout these intricately complex times by those who lived and saw the world through the eyes of what would become the primary ideological basis of medieval Europe. Therefore, this thesis intends to be an initial investigation of this question in a chronology that spans about a century, throughout three Latin authors: Eutropius, Orosius and Hydatius. In fact, this will be a preliminary approach, although still indicative, of what should become, in the future, a more exhaustive inquiry on this topic. For now, I intend to grasp who was identified as a Barbarian by these three authors and how they were described, while also evaluating how the so-called

‘barbarians’ were characterised at a semantic, cultural and literary level. Additionally, I will interpret the parameters that constitute barbarism and define if they are organic and original to each author, or if they obey some literary topos conditioned by literary or religious tradition.

4 European historians, especially those of the eighteen and nineteen centuries, contributed significantly to the current image of the Barbarian through their interpretations of classical and Renaissance sources.

(22)

4

METHODOLOGY

Studies related to ‘Identity’ have been increasing in the social sciences since the third quarter of the twentieth century. Identifying precise patterns in ancient cultures, whether linguistic or cultural, has become essential for understanding the perceptions of archaic societies on ethnic and self-identity. Likewise, the concept of ‘the Barbarian’ has been gaining importance. It is widely studied in fields like literature, history and ethnology as it opens many doors to topics of general interest to modern society, many of which are linked to severe problems like discrimination and xenophobia. However, right from the beginning of its use, there already existed several problems with the definition of Barbarian. In Late Antiquity, this concept gained an even more fluid definition due to the reconfiguration of several identities, such as being a Christian, a pagan, a heretic, or even a Roman in the new political, social and cultural contexts of the fourth century CE.

A mere study of the sources and monographs could have been enough to reach some valid conclusions and get to the root of the central discussion of this dissertation. However, this methodology did not seem adequate for the rigorous research that the Master’s degree entails.

There was a preference for working directly with the sources to carry out a worthy investigation and present precise results in a way that was directly linked to the objectives of the thesis. Therefore, my initial focus was the choice of sources, considering that the selected texts needed to concentrate on specific characteristics for this dissertation to be a complete and solid body of work, even if introductory. With this in mind, I concluded that all texts should be in Latin (preferably by Christian authorship), and they must be framed within a certain period

— Late Antiquity — while also containing sufficient material about the Barbarian and its representatives, actual or literary.

The objectives of this thesis are rather specific in content. Therefore, the most crucial question about reaching its goals is mainly related to the choice of the textual corpus and the period covered by it. One of the possible approaches was confining the content to ecclesiastical history or strictly theological works to define the Barbarian. However, that would originate a less elucidative work, as the main focus of Christianity was not ethnicity (Gal. 3:28) but spirit;

Christianity was meant to be shared equally by everyone regardless of their origins (Stroumsa 1996).

Covering a more extended chronological period could also have worked. For that, it would have been necessary to choose more sources to analyse or select authors with farther time

(23)

5

intervals between publications. Alternatively, I could have chosen another century to study instead of the transition period from the fourth to the fifth century CE. However, this was not in line with the objective of this dissertation, given the significant changes at the geographic, political, religious and cultural levels during these two centuries (Rohrbacher 2002). The transition from the fourth to the fifth century thus seemed suitable for studying terms like

‘Barbarian’ and ‘Pagan’, which constantly changed and depended on their context to be understood.

Lastly, there was a need to agree on a fixed number of ethnonyms to investigate and choose which of the barbarian ethnic groups would become the study subjects. Six peoples seemed convenient since they could be separated into two groups of three, allowing a comparison between the two sets. The Goths were the immediate choice of the ethnonyms to be researched;

it would be unthinkable to dissect the Barbarian of the fourth and fifth centuries without referring to the largest and most influential barbarian group in the Empire.⁵ The Huns were, in turn, selected because they are one of the most recognisable barbarian groups in present-day popular culture, together with their infamous leader Atilla. The Franks were also chosen because they were among the most influential groups forming early European culture. Finally, the Suebi, the Alans and the Vandals were selected as a consequence for picking Orosius and Hydatius as sources. Since both were Spaniards, it seemed appropriate to investigate the peoples that invaded the Iberian Peninsula. Finally, three Scythian tribes (Alans, Goths⁶ and Huns) and three German tribes (Franks, Suebi and Vandals) were chosen — the perfect composition to reach the average idea of what these authors thought about the barbarians.

On the other hand, an exciting alternative would have been to choose some pagan authors, such as Ammianus Marcellinus or Eunapius, to contrast with the image transmitted by Christian authors. However, although engaging, this would end up fragmenting this study too much since the number of sources analysed would always be narrow and, in the end, would not be sufficiently representative to conclude what were the differences between the Barbarian of the pagan authors and the Christian ones.

***

5 The greatest barbarian (foreign) power in the East was, without doubt, the Persians, but the Eastern territories were also some of the most affected by the Gothic invasions (Mitchell 2015, 96–8). Nevertheless, the Persians are not usually identified as typical ‘barbarians’ (Inglebert 2012, 11).

6 For the reason of grouping the Goths with the Scythian peoples even though they were, in fact, German, see pp. 47–9.

(24)

6

Although there are other possible pathways to reach this thesis’ goal, the methodology is the same as any historiographical work. Still, the theme leans into a literary study of cultural and ethnological bases, heavily relying on several statistical elements. Heuristics and hermeneutics are also essential for this work. Without them, studying the period of Late Antiquity, the concept of Barbarian, and the role of the ethnonyms in Christian historiography would have been impractical. Statistics proved a valuable tool that helped organise data and facilitated the quick observation of certain factors used to define the Barbarian and the barbarians — mainly, the semantics. This set of theoretical tools seemed to be the most straightforward and intuitive of all the methodological solutions to answer the initial question, in addition to the problem of choosing the textual corpus itself. Nevertheless, as this project primarily focuses on three specific works, I will strive to avoid over-generalisation. I am well aware that if the corpus were expanded, there would be the possibility of reaching different conclusions, even using the same methodological approach.

This dissertation follows an order that, albeit not necessarily linear, is hopefully organic and intuitive both for approaching the topic and understanding it. As such, this thesis is divided into four main chapters, taking into account the many facets of the Barbarian and the barbarians in Eutropius, Orosius and Hydatius’ works. Outside these four chapters, there is still considerable and essential information, namely on the textual corpus and state of the art, which have sections in this ‘Introduction’. These subdivisions aim to acquaint the reader with the sources and the concept of Barbarian — detailing the reasons for the selection and explaining the studies on the chosen texts and concepts.

After establishing a ground-level knowledge about the authors, their productions and the evolution of the concept of ‘Barbarian’, the dissertation proceeds with the identification of the main subject in the first chapter of the thesis development. Chapter I, ‘Identifying the Barbarian’, is mainly a statistical analysis. It has little interpretation, focusing instead on scrutinising a particular set of relevant words that demonstrate which peoples are explicitly called barbarians by the chosen authors and whether there is an evolution in the use of

‘barbarus’ or the ethnonyms, intra and intertextually. This chapter is complemented with details about other possible ways to subdivide the ‘Other’ (geographic, ethnic, religious) while giving an introductory explanation about each of the categories.

The second and third chapters constitute the interpretative part of the thesis. Chapter II,

‘Characterisation of the Barbarian’, is a cross-section in which some statistical analysis is

(25)

7

extended to examine individual characters and characterisation elements associated with the Barbarian and each ethnonym. The gathered data shall then be used to better assess the general picture of these peoples in Late Antiquity and their characterisation by contemporary historians.

Semantics is one of the main elements used in analysing the Barbarian description because verbs and adjectives clearly express how they were portrayed. Additionally, by examining several individual characters — like Alaric or Stilicho — it was possible to identify whether these personalities mirrored the Barbarian or if they were intended to show an exception to the typical barbaric behaviour and why. Lastly, there is a list of all the historical barbarians mentioned throughout the works under study.

Chapter III, ‘Understanding the writers’, is solely interpretative and is intended to give one last glimpse into the Barbarian image through the authors’ similarities and differences in their texts, styles, sources and personal life. In this chapter, each author is compared by their experiences with barbarians, in order to understand their influences when they wrote about and described these foreign peoples, or if they obeyed any literary topos. There is also an insight into how they used the barbarians to express their ideas about the world and its future. In conclusion, all of the previously gathered knowledge is used to form an outcome on the role of the sources used by these historians and an understanding on whether their perceptions derived from personal experiences or tradition (or both), be it cultural, literary or ideological.

Chapter IV, ‘Final Considerations’, is the last chapter of this dissertation. It is a commentary on how the Barbarian picture prevailed in the barbarian mindset, motivated by Christianity and the established definition of the Pagan and Heretic. Moreover, it also elaborates on how these definitions were used as one of the unitary elements in the religious philosophy that would mark the beginning of the European kingdoms and the Middle Ages.

(26)

8

THE TEXTUAL CORPUS

Choosing an excellent textual corpus is one of the most challenging and essential tasks in the planning phases of any dissertation, as there is a need for sources with the necessary content to answer (or not) the initial questions while also enabling a structure of an accurate and reliable study. This thesis aims to understand who and what the Barbarian was for the late antique Romano-Christians and how it was characterised. With this in mind, Eutropius’ Breuiarium ab Urbe Condita, liber VII of Orosius’ Historiae aduersus paganos and Hydatius’ Chronica were found suitable for those purposes.

In this subchapter, the arguments why these specific texts were chosen instead of other equally qualified ones are justified. Additionally, there is a small introduction to the works themselves, their historical context, their literary or ideological programs, and who would be their target audience. However, there will not be any extended exploration these problems yet, as some will be discussed later in chapter III (pp. 94–106).

MOTIVES OF SELECTION

The question of Barbarian imagery is quite complex, and several late antique authors could have been chosen for this study. However, why choose only three authors, and why would they be Eutropius, Orosius and Hydatius specifically? The fourth and fifth centuries are rich in historiographical resources from contemporary or almost contemporary authors, to the events and people necessary for this dissertation. Other authors like Ammianus Marcellinus, Procopius, Sozomen, Zosimus, or even Jordanes (sixth century CE), seem to be equally valid authors for evaluating the topic of the Barbarian. In fact, they were taken into account during the initial phase of the thesis, but they were not selected for the project’s final form, at least not directly.

Since there is a focus on the Christian perception of the Barbarian, it is evident that Christian authors were needed. This need came to be not only because of the possible older biblical literary topoi about the barbarians, but also because it is their conception of the world. That conception would later spread through medieval Europe, setting down some major foundations for the modern Western world.

As my level of Latin is higher than that of Greek, there was a preference for Latin authors.

The objective of this study was to use the texts in the original language whenever possible and to reduce resorting to translations, used mainly as an aid in more obscure cases.

(27)

9

Orosius and Hydatius not only meet these requirements, they even surpass them. They are not merely Christians, but actual members of the Church. Moreover, they come from the West;

in particular, from one of the regions most affected by the establishment of barbarian populations at the beginning of the fifth century — the Iberian Peninsula. Additionally, they trace their origins to the province of Gallaecia, more specifically to the area that corresponds to the northernmost parts of modern-day Portugal and its border with Galicia in Spain, one of the most isolated regions of the Empire. This fact gives an interesting point of view of the Roman Empire and the identity of its provincial Christian citizens.

Eutropius, although he deviates from the criteria mentioned earlier, is not a less critical author for this dissertation.Furthermore, the fact that Eutropius wrote in the East is a way of understanding the perspective, albeit a Latin one, of someone writing in the ‘New Rome’. This, in turn, contrasts with the idea that the West and East were two different ‘empires’ during the fourth century. Moreover, his work — written an entire century before Hydatius’ Chronica — establishes a comparative groundwork between the old and new vision of the Barbarian from its various perspectives. Therefore, the historiographical works of these three authors would complement themselves in chronology and ideology, making them appropriate to approach the problems initially proposed and eventually discover the answers.

***

Eutropius is the oldest of the addressed authors. So his work, the Breuiarium ab Urbe Condita,⁷ is essential for understanding the initial position of the fourth-century Romans on the Barbarian, in a time when the Roman world, although facing difficulties, maintained a proud mentality about its dominance.

Eutropius was born in the first half of the fourth century CE, shortly after Constantine united the Empire and delegated his controversial policies to favour Christianity. The author then grew up in a period of relative stability. However, this time was still marked by the constant military insecurity against barbarian advancements, as well as the political and religious turmoil that affected the general population and the imperial household after the death of Constantine. Not much is known about the life of Eutropius aside from the speculations from external sources, like letters and official papers that mention people with the same name. According to the Suda,

7 Also referred to as Breuiarium Historiae Romanae.

(28)

10

Eutropius had an Italic origin (despite his Greek name and most of his career in the East), and Bird (2011, viii) mentions that he likely came from a middle-class family.

Rohrbacher (2002) and Bird (2011) reconstruct Eutropius as a very influential character in his time. He held several official posts in the Empire’s administration throughout the years and was close to the higher circles of both the Western and Eastern parts of the Empire. However, as Den Boer (1972) alerts, there is no absolute certainty on who he was, other than that he was a magister memoriae in Constantinople and participated in Julian’s campaigns against the Persians in 363 CE — information that the author himself gives.

Eutropius wrote his breviary at the request of emperor Valens, perhaps as part of his duties as an imperial secretary, in 369–370 CE. Around this time, the Eastern empire was threatened by the Persians and the Goths, and emperor Valens led a military campaign on the Lower Danube against the latter. Bird (2011) believes that Eutropius was part of that campaign and that he wrote his work amidst the military operations, compiling it following his patron’s success.

The Breuiarium, as can be guessed from its name, follows the Latin concept of breuitas (brevity), which was quite prominent in late antique literature due to its ease of consumption compared to the volumes written in earlier centuries. However, even though this work was supposed to be a short, digest-sized history compendium, it is rather unidimensional with little to no context on economic, cultural or institutional facts. Instead, it is more of a generalised gathering of military feats (Rohrbacher 2002, 55), divided in ten books representing the different phases of Roman history. There is also a lack of religious commentaries, which is curious given the controversies that arose during that time. The reasons might have been an absence of earnest perceptions of the author regarding that field or, most likely, a desire to safeguard his official position. It is obvious that Eutropius valued loyalty and that maintaining the status quo was key to maintaining his position. It is therefore doubtful that he would make any comments that could bring his Arian emperor, or his faith, under scrutiny. This behaviour earned him continuous career promotions throughout the sovereignty of several emperors with different political and religious beliefs (Bird 2011, xvii–xviii).⁸

The Breuiarium ab Urbe Condita is written with a traditional mindset, based solely on Roman-centred ideas and events. As stated before, Eutropius was a proud and honourable

8 Eutropius’ career spans roughly from 360 to 390 CE, spanning the ruling of emperor Constantius II to Theodosius I.

(29)

11

Roman, so the Empire’s enemies held a minor interest in the grand scale of things. Thus, there is a tendency to value and exalt generals and their military feats while emphasising the Senate’s importance and role in transforming Rome into a global power. Eutropius’ beliefs cemented such a mentality on Rome’s right to dominate (Den Boer 1972, 141–7).

Eutropius is also objective and explicit in his writing style, limiting himself to using only a handful rhetorical features and expressions. His objective was to decrease the length and ambiguity of the text through techniques that agreed with the core concept of breuitas, similar to the typical writing style associated with works of bureaucratic nature with which Eutropius was familiar (Rohrbacher 2002). This prose form also supports the argument that Eutropius purposely avoided the traditional rhetoric’s vagueness because of his less-cultured audience (Bird 2011).

Eutropius, being a senator, held a strong bias towards the Senate and often appealed to the institution’s importance throughout his work. This focus could have meant that he did it to please people of a particular social class, probably senators or pro-senatorial families belonging to the aristocratic elite of the Empire, during a time in which the Senate was greatly impoverished of power (Den Boer 1972, 147; Rohrbacher 2002, 188). However, Bird (2011) has a slightly different take on this approach. He says that Eutropius wrote the breviary for an uncultivated audience, like military officers or the new eastern nobility, instead of the educated senatorial elite. The latter statement is more credible, as Valens — and Valentinian — were both provincials from Pannonia, risen from the military with presumably little knowledge about the history of Rome. Moreover, since the breviary originates at the emperor’s request, it would make sense that its audience would be men within the same background parameters as the emperor’s. This would justify the pro-conquest ideas that the author widely spreads along with the simplicity of his writing.

Regardless of who the intended audience was — the elite or the less-educated — it is clear that Eutropius wrote for a mixed audience composed of Christians and pagans. Nevertheless, his work became accessible to the general reading public. It was prevalent among other late antique historians like Ammianus Marcellinus, Jerome, Augustine, Orosius, Cassiodorus, Jordanes, Isidore, Bede and Paul the Deacon, later to be a popular textbook throughout the Middle Ages, both in the West and the East (Bird 2011).

The importance of the Breuiarium is then evident, but for this dissertation, its value lies mainly in the fact that it is one of the known sources of Orosius. This fact turns Eutropius into

(30)

12

a significant reference, not only in comparing and understanding the general evolution of the late antique ideology regarding the Barbarian, but also in seeing how Christian authors adapted specific themes.

*

The Historiae aduersus paganos places itself right at the centre of this thesis in more ways than one. The seventh book⁹ of Orosius’ most remarkable work is chronologically between Eutropius’ and Hydatius’, functioning as a bridge between the historical records and writing styles of both authors. Despite that, even if it is only the last book of the seven that compose the Historiae, its volume is comparable in size to the entirety of the other works. This gives us much material to dissect, since Orosius tends to be biased towards Christianity. Moreover, his rhetorical prose is filled with barbarians and their deeds.

Orosius¹⁰ was a Roman priest and historian that lived during the transition of the fourth to the fifth century CE, the period of instability that would precede the fragmentation of the Western Empire through various internal and external factors. Based on approximations grounded on his works and external information, it is believed that Orosius lived roughly between 375/85 and 420 CE, and it is primarily believed — even though there are some disputes —¹¹ that Orosius was native to the Iberian Peninsula. More specifically, to the Gallaecian cities of Bracara Augusta¹² or Corunna¹³. Living through the end of the fourth and beginning of the fifth century means that Orosius was a contemporary of the great Christian philosophers like Augustine and Jerome, whom he eventually met. Nonetheless, he also lived in a time when Roman consciousness about the Barbarian and its concept was in change, spurred by the battle of Adrianople and the settlement of barbarians in Roman territory.

It is known that the author of the Historiae had to flee to Africa, probably due to the barbarian populations that invaded the Hispanic provinces in 409 CE (Rohrbacher 2002, 135–

6).¹⁴ However, it can be assumed that the priest always had a hectic life. Orosius was an

‘ecclesiastical polemicist’ — as Fear calls him — a fervent Christian who consistently

9 This, for the most part in this dissertation, is referenced by the Latin designation ‘liber VII’.

10 Also known as Paulus Orosius. However, there is no certainty about his actual first name. The name ‘Paulus’

was attributed in the sixth century CE because the author was previously mentioned as Orosius P. However, in this case, the ‘P’ could have meant presbyter, as he was a clergyman (Rohrbacher 2002, 135).

11 For another perspective on Orosius’ origins, see Corráin 2017.

12 Present-day Braga, Portugal.

13 Present-day A Coruña, Galicia, Spain.

14 However, his escape must have occurred only around 411 CE, when the city of Bracara was occupied by the Suebi (Fear 2010, 3–4).

(31)

13

demonstrated his tendencies to defend the Nicaean Creed against its supposed enemies. This attitude led him to be involved in controversies against Priscillianism¹⁵ in the Iberian Peninsula and Pelagianism during his stay in Jerusalem (Fear 2010, 4–5).

The Historiae aduersus paganos is the priest’s most noteworthy project. Despite aiming to cover the entire history of the world and its peoples, the author focuses mainly on the history of Rome. The period after the birth of Christ — which coincides with Caesar Augustus and the Principate’s beginning — is narrated in its seventh book and occupies more than two-thirds of his work. He wrote other studies but is primarily recognised for this one in particular, a universal (apologetic) history of the world written from a Christian perspective.

Orosius’ work started, perhaps initially, at the request of Augustine, to whom he dedicated his volumes.¹⁶ It originated from a need to defend his beliefs against the Pagans who, due to the abandonment of the traditional Roman pantheon and sacrifices, accused the Christians of being the cause of Rome’s decadence that culminated in the sack of Alaric in 410 CE. However, rather than solely fighting against pagan accusations, Orosius tried to justify Christianity as the true religion of Rome, and did so by recounting the entire history of humanity and presenting it as the direct result of divine will.

In the Historiae, Orosius argues that just as God rules in Heaven, Rome, as a divine instrument, must rule over the material world. Therefore men must submit to its power for peace to be possible (Oros. Hist. 6.17.9.). This may have been somewhat similar to the typical (aristocratic) Roman mentality exhibited in Eutropius, which promotes the idea that Rome has the right to dominate other peoples — however, it has an entirely different origin. At its core, that idea results from the early Christian tendency to deem ethnicity irrelevant because Christianity was a religion to unite all races and peoples. For Orosius — who saw himself as a Christian and a Roman (Oros. Hist. 5.2.6.) — the means to arrive at this result was naturally through imperial rule. In his eyes, to be under the influence of Rome was to be under the Church of God, existing a direct and natural correlation between the Pax Romana and the Pax Diuina (Fear 2010, 21).

15 The Priscillianian heresy had a powerful presence in the Iberian Peninsula, particularly in Gallaecia, during the late fourth and fifth centuries CE. See Escribano 2005.

16 The dedication of Orosius to the Bishop of Hippo (Oros. 1. prol. 3–8) is a rhetorical tradition typical of the literature of the time, where he shows modesty while dedicating his work to a prestigious figure (captatio beneuolentiae). It might be true that, initially, Augustine may have asked Orosius for a brief list of events that could be used to help him write his Ciuitate Dei. However, the Historiae appear as something voluminous and independent from the City of God, with ideological principles opposed to Augustine’s philosophy. Therefore, the influences between one author and the other are few and weak (Alberto and Furtado 2000, 26–42).

(32)

14

Orosius writes in a style typical of late Latin authors (Rohrbacher 2002, 138), but in a new category of apologetic history aiming to prove established theological points through carefully reading past events. This notion of divine intervention and Providence as an agent of historical events was not exactly new in the Christian literary world (Fear 2010, 11). However, this vision alone would not have made Orosius a notable author, despite being an ambitious project. His work was fascinating because of his rhetoric and use of classical sources to justify his pro-Christian arguments (see pp. 94–106). This use of the sources allowed him to fight against the pagans on an equal footing. In principle, they could not grade his work as ‘minor’ for being poorly written or for not using the sources that, since the beginning, served the veracity and legitimacy of the Graeco‑Roman tradition. With more or less subtlety, Orosius used biblical sources and gospels, but his knowledge and use of traditional Roman works to support his ideological agenda remain his primary weapons against the pagans.

The author uses various weapons in his Historiae to justify his point of view. For example, Orosius compares the past to show that disasters were much worse before the birth of Christ;

he affirms that ancient historians were fallible and wrong in their interpretation of reality. He also edits classic quotations and omits specific facts that did not suit his points and theories, and criticises pagan authors, diminishing their credibility and convincing his (actual) audience that Christian historical sources were the only reliable authorities (Fear 2010, 14–6;

Rohrbacher 2002, 8, 157). However, it is clear that Orosius also tried his best to convey his feelings and perspectives to his audience, which contributed to the creation of a very eloquent and lengthy historiographical project compared to later authors.

Nonetheless, the entire theme and composition of Orosius’ work were indeed aimed at the pagans, the elite Roman intellectuals who argued against Christianity and its precipitation of imperial disgrace and degradation (Fear 2010, 11). However, that was not the public that ended up captivated.¹⁷ Notwithstanding his dedication to winning the support of the unbelievers, his audience turned out to be mainly Christian (Rohrbacher 2002, 152). It is interesting how, despite the author’s origins, Orosius’ work does not seem to have been circulating widely in the Iberian Peninsula in the years after its publication (Muhlberger 1990, 206). This lack of circulation was perhaps a consequence of the state of that region, as it was overwhelmed by barbarians.

17 Rohrbacher (2002) questions Orosius’ target audience, as he says that despite being ‘against the pagans’, there is no severe criticism against pagan practices in the Historiae.

(33)

15

Ultimately, Orosius’ theological and historiographical attitude made him one of the most-read sources on Antiquity during the Middle Ages, turning his work into an essential reference for this thesis.

*

The most recent of the three authors under study is Hydatius. His work, the Chronica, set the final point in understanding the principles and ideologies of the Romans of the second half of the fifth century in the West and how the Barbarian topos evolved from fourth-century literature to Christian historiography in what was already a conflictual and fragmentary Empire.

As with other remote historians, little is known about Hydatius’ personal life. Apart from what he tells about his personal experiences, the rest are general calculations based on letters and the chronology of his work. He must have been born around 390 or 400 CE in the little town of Lemica Ciuitas¹⁸. He lived a long life, dying around 470 CE. This chronology places Hydatius not only in one of the most isolated regions of the Empire, but also during a time when barbarian forces most ravaged it. These forces comprised Alans, Suebi, Vandals and — later in his life — Goths. This vision is clear for Hydatius, who still remembered his youth rich in opportunities and free of the constant threat before 411 CE, when the Hispano-Roman communities saw a need to protect themselves from the barbarian hosts that had arrived in the province of Gallaecia (Burgess 1993, 4).

Hydatius must have been a relatively influential member of his community. This allowed him to achieve the rank of Bishop¹⁹ at a very young age and justified his participation in higher tasks, such as asking the famous magister militum Aetius for help against the Suebi and assisting the bishop of Asturica²⁰ in the ‘hunt’ against Priscillianism. Moreover, because of his position as bishop and personal circumstances, Hydatius might have seen himself as a defender of the Roman cause, as he spent part of his life opposing the barbarians and the propagation of the heresy (Arianism) they brought (Muhlberger 1990, 194).

The Chronica, his major work, was written to complete the job left by the admired Jerome, his model and inspiration. With that in mind, Hydatius introduced his work as the last section

18 In the vicinity of the present-day Nocelo da Pena, Galicia, Spain.

19 Hydatius was the bishop of Aquae Flauiae — present-day Chaves, Portugal — hence his name. Interestingly, there are no references to the existence of an episcopal seat in Aquae Flauiae. However, the map of the dioceses in fifth-century Spain is primarily unknown, and the seat might have been dissolved after the reforms of the Suebi in the sixth century CE (Muhlberger 1990, 199; Thompson 1982, 140).

20 Present-day Astorga, Spain.

(34)

16

of a series supposed to be considered ‘monolithic’. That series included Eusebius’ and Jerome’s chronicles, which, together with the Chronica, tell the history of humanity from its Abrahamic origins to the beginning of the reign of Euric, king of the Visigoths (420–484 CE).

Despite some recent theses trying to distinguish two phases of composition for the Chronica, it is estimated that Hydatius began writing soon after the Gothic invasions of Gallaecia and Lusitania in 456–457 CE. This means that the bishop wrote his accounts over ten years in a place of chaos, disorder and instability, not only from the Iberian Peninsula, but from the Empire as a whole (Wieser 2019, 14–7).²¹

Eusebius’ Chronici Canones strongly inspired Hydatius’ work through Jerome’s Latin translations. However, the fifth-century chronicler does not follow the examples of breuitas typically present in these authors and generally associated with the chronicle genre.

Burgess (1993) describes him as thorough, far more so than other late antique chroniclers — a characteristic that almost doomed him to obscurity, despite the early circulation of his work.

This view is shared by Muhlberger (1990), who claims that attention to detail is one of Hydatius’

unique characteristics. Such thoroughness and attention to detail — especially when describing something related to his contemporary environment — together with an attempt to combine the traditional historiographical writing with the structural model of the chronicle, resulted in a work that was too long and had excessively complicated Latin when compared with other chroniclers of his time and after (Burgess 1993, 9).

Nonetheless, the Chronica is relatively straightforward. Hydatius’ eschatological ideas, which defended divine will as the main factor in the disasters and successes of the Empire, are the recurring theme throughout the text (Muhlberger 1990, 214). This apocalyptic vision differs from Orosius’ but still shares some common similarities, which are assumed to be typical of Christian works after Eusebius and Jerome. The purpose of his Chronica was to leave a legacy.

Hydatius designates himself as a witness, not only of the divine work — as his predecessors did — but mainly of the last years of Gallaecia and the Roman Empire since it is believed that the old bishop considered that the world would end before the turning of the century (Burgess 1993, 9–10).

Hydatius wished to pass on his testimony on the end of (his) world through the record of the imperial state in the Iberian Peninsula. Hence, he did not resort to primary historiographical

21 This apocalyptic image is fuelled by the descriptions of Hydatius himself, one of the few sources for fifth‑century Spain.

(35)

17

sources and confined himself mainly to oral testimonies, letters and, to a large extent, his personal experiences. This is reinforced by the fact that Hydatius is a character in his own Chronica, which justifies his focus on Gallaecia — his home region — and his comprehensive descriptions of certain events during his lifetime, especially in the latest years covered.

Despite placing himself on the same level as other universal chroniclers, Hydatius focuses mainly on the Iberian Peninsula. This attention did not hold much general interest for the communities outside Iberia and largely confined his audience to his Hispanic compatriots.

However, considering his situation, it does not seem that the search for Hispano-Roman (mostly Gallaecian) or Christian-only audience was his sole motivation. On the contrary, Thompson (1982, 141–50) states that is an excellent effort by Hydatius to try and make his work as ‘universal’ as any other. Otherwise, he would not seek as much information about the world outside the Iberian Peninsula whenever he could, through letters, informants and diplomats.

Unfortunately, it does not seem that Orosius was a source for Hydatius. If that were the case, it would have been possible to see a direct evolution of the terminology and ideas related to the concept of the Barbarian in a continuous line since Eutropius. Nevertheless, the Chronica is still a fascinating source. It can be used to understand many things about those obscure times and relatively remote territory of provincial Rome. Moreover, it also assumes a pivotal role in this dissertation as the final vision into understanding who was ‘the Barbarian’ in late Romano-Christian works.

(36)

18

THE FOURTH AND FIFTH CENTURIES: THE ENVIRONMENT OF PRODUCTION

The fourth and fifth centuries CE were a period of fast transitions, be it in politics, cultures or concepts. The second half of the fourth century was marked by general uncertainty and political anxiety. Nevertheless, despite the civil wars, imperial intrigues, religious tensions and the ever- increasing foreign pressure on the Roman borders, it can be said that this period was relatively stable for the Empire until 378 CE and even up to the death of Theodosius I (395 CE).

During the last part of the reign of Constantius II (337–361 CE), when Eutropius began his political career, these instabilities and insecurities were noticeable but not pre-eminent.

Particularly after his defeat of the Alamanni in 357 CE, the military successes of Julian — who was Caesar of the West at the time — contrasted with the political results of Constantius II.

This victory by Julian was vital for reinforcing the Roman presence on the Rhine and especially for morale, as it helped maintain the idea that Rome remained a power that any barbarian could not challenge. When Julian became emperor in 361 CE, he became a symbol of aspiration for Roman re-emergence due to his military successes and expansionist spirit (Mitchell 2015, 74–

84). These commendable virtues won him the approval of late fourth-century pagan historians such as Eutropius and Ammianus Marcellinus, who also served him in official positions and during military campaigns.

Julian apostatised in favour of Paganism and tried to revert the Christian Empire to its former traditional religion. Rufinus of Aquileia, a contemporary of Julian, describes him as cunning, fierce, cruel and with a craze for idolatry. The italic monk also details a period of great hardship for Christian citizens, who lost many civil and official rights during the pagan emperor’s reign, from being banned from accessing ancient pagan sources to being unable to hold official administrative positions (Rufin. 10.33–7). Even supporters of Julian like Ammianus Marcellinus and Eutropius condemned the excessive prejudice of the emperor towards the Christians (Mitchel 2015, 289–90). Although it is likely that Eutropius only mentioned this to please his Arian patron, since he makes no further remarks of religious character throughout his Breuiarium.

Regardless of Julian’s religious ambitions, he is represented by his contemporaries as a

‘proper’ Roman emperor. However, when he was finally defeated during his offensive against the Sassanid Persians in 363 CE, his successor, Jovian (363–364 CE), was ultimately blamed for the Roman defeat. This is because instead of continuing his predecessor’s fight, he

(37)

19

surrendered to the enemy, staining Roman pride and ceding important provinces and cities (Eutr. 10.17.).

Jovian’s reign was brief, given his untimely death less than a year after Julian’s, and it was not until the end of Valentinian I (264–375 CE) and Valens’ (364–378 CE) rule that the Roman conceptual understanding of the world began to change. This change was due to several factors, starting with the administrative division of the Empire between the two brothers. Valentinian I preferred a diplomatic approach over open warfare with the barbarians on the Rhine and the upper Danube in the West.²² At the same time, his Eastern counterpart soon launched a punitive expedition against the Goths of the lower Danube for supporting the usurper Procopius (Mitchell 2015, 84–7). This was the imperial scenario when Eutropius, in the service of Valens, wrote his Breuiarium ab Urbe Condita. There is even the possibility that the author was involved in this same campaign against the barbarians (Bird 2010, xiii).

The Eastern emperor had shown grand military ambitions, and some even question if Valens issued the Breuiarium of Eutropius as a means to convince the military to support his desire for another campaign against the Persians (Bird 2010, xx). However, he did not live to see his alleged wishes fulfilled, as he died prematurely in the Battle of Adrianople (378 CE) against a horde of Goths.

Towards the end of Valens’ reign, the Empire entered a period of instability from which it would never recover. The transformations it underwent changed the Roman perception and marked the downfall of the Roman superiority status.

The Romans believed they were destined to rule the world. This can be seen through the various artistic traditions that have circulated since the Republican period and that prove their effort to spreading their imperialist ideology. This idealism incited the Romans to expand their territories and wage violent campaigns, often against groups that posed no immediate threat to Rome’s power, such as Valens’ operation against the Goths on the lower Danube. These same ideals are still present in the historiographical work of Eutropius, whose patriotic pride — assisted by the expansionist tendencies of spotted characters like Julian or Valens — assured him of the legitimacy of Rome, its dominance, and its capacity for eventual success.

Nevertheless, after the publication of the Breuiarium ab Urbe Condita, the Romans had their reality (and mentality) challenged by the growing strength of the barbarians. This manifested

22 Even though Valentinian I’s campaigns on the Rhine are well-known, as described by Ammianus Marcellinus.

Three perspectives of the ‘other’: the barbarian in Eutropius, Orosius and Hydatius

UNIVERSIDADE DE LISBOA FACULDADE DE LETRAS